Awesome Ancient Geographic Geometry

So, could Atlantis be on this line?

It does not look like the line goes straight around the globe. Each of the globes in the picture is tilted differently.

I could draw a line through other discoveries that are not on the line shown. Draw a line around the globe at any angle anywhere and you could probably find two or more points on it that have something in common.

[edit on 7-18-2005 by groingrinder]

Hello Sacreligion and all,

bc] In my book The Gods (1998) I used photos of the Nascan figures that I licenced from the "Asociación Maria Reiche," Nasca, Peru; and I placed them in association with certain passages from the "The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts" and demonstrated that the Nascan figures serve to illustrate those ancient passages from the Pyramid Texts.

The Pyramid Texts are those found in the pyramids of Saqqara, Egypt and are the oldest written record in the world. View Zone carries an article I wrote about them.

30,000 Years Ago from yesterday

If you look it over, I think it will provide a lot of answers

bc
.

it's quite possible that these cultures were around when pangaea was intact...maybe the continents spread apart not as long ago and a lot faster than we think...and then maybe atlantis was the epicenter of pangaea in this hypothetical situation...and the catastrophic event that it would have been is what caused the great city to fall...if it existed

maybe egyptians, mayans, greeks, babylonians, etc. were all like the rhode islands of ancient times...branching off with their own ideas but without the resources the main entity had

Hello all,

Sacreligion wrote:

i wish i had the means to see if the nazca lines themselves correlate with other ruins in this manner

bc] In a sense you do. If you have a globe lay out the equator that goes through Easter island, Nasca, and Giza [use white thread covered with glue]. Then note that your equator crosses Giza [at the 30 parallel] at an angle of about 5 degrees north. Now look at the attached photo of the Sphinx and you'll notice that the body [spine] of the Sphinx is parallel to your new equator. ONLY the face is looking east along the 30th parallel, the rest follows the equator of 30,000 years ago.

You cansee that Orthodoxy is a little loose with the truth.
.

.
beforebc
.

Originally posted by Alias Jones
The ancient ruins scattered across the globe are all basically in a straight line around the planet. I have known bits and pieces about the correlations of giza to Ankhor Wot to Nazca for some time but havent read anything like the site provided in the link below. It's fantastic to say the least.

In the sense that it's fantasy based, yes. It selectively picks sites and ignores a lot of others, like Stonehenge and the White Horse in England and all the other sacred henges (SeaHenge), the ancient temples in China (and the White Pyramid and other pyramids there), all the sacred sites in Australia, the pyramids in Mexico, the great Sun Wheels in the North Americas, etc, etc.

And it skips over Babylon and Jerusalem and Bubastis and so forth.

- Amazing

Not really. If you "cherrry pick" your data, you can prove that all the important sites lie along the prime meridian or just about any other great circle on the Earth you care to draw.

I propse the 10,000- 11,000 BCE timeframe for construction of many of these sites - and no I have no concrete proof -

Probably because they were doing other things during that time frame. A number of them left written records about when they built their monuments, and it certainly wasn't during that time frame. Concrete dates are mentioned... humans have been literate since around 5,000 BC and left drawings and tools and artifacts for a very long time (tens of thousands of years) before that.

Sacreligion:
No, it's not possible that the civilizations were around in Pangaea. Pangaea was during the earliest time of the dinosaurs. Humans wouldn't evolve for another hundred million years or so.

Hello Byrd and all,

Byrd wrote:

It [the ancient equatorial line through Nasca, Giza, etc] selectively picks sites and ignores a lot of others

bc] That is not true Byrd. I was specific in my post above and Alison's site is clear on this point also. The line corresponds to an equator whose pole is at 60N : 140W.

Only locations of interest on that ancient equator are mentioned. So PLEASE read what is posted !

bc
.

Originally posted by beforebc

bc] The problem here as that you've all skimmed over Jim Alison's work and you've all missed the point. Admittedly, the lineal [i.e., straight line] layout that connects the four globes in the illustration is deceiving, but if you take the time to mark your own globes at Easter Island, Nasca, Giza, etc [as suggested] .. you'd see that what you're looking at is an ancient equator with the northern pole positioned at ~60N :: 140W.

This line of globes is showing the equator that corresponds to Charles Hapgood's Alaskan pole position as defined in Hapgood's 1956 book [wherein Einstein wrote the forward], Earth's Shifting Crust.
bc

Fortunately for Albert Einstein (and the rest of us, I suppose), he didn't quit his day job. The idea that the weight of ice at the poles could cause the entire crust of the Earth to slip around to a new position relative to the mantle is, to say the least, ridiculous. Einstein, being a theoretical physicist, was had. It wasn't the first time that the Professor was wrong and wouldn't be the last.

Originally posted by beforebc
That is not true Byrd. I was specific in my post above and Alison's site is clear on this point also. The line corresponds to an equator whose pole is at 60N : 140W.

The entire hypothesis is preposterous. The shift in unison of the entire crust of the Earth cannot happen. There is no force to make it happen. And even, if by some miracle, it did happen, there would certainly be reams and reams of evidence of such a catastrophe in the geologic record. There is none.

Hapgood and his ilk have contributed to the advancement of bad science, a pseudoscientific revolution that is occurring to this day. All in the name of the almighty dollar.

Harte

Originally posted by beforebc
Hello Byrd and all,

Byrd wrote:

It [the ancient equatorial line through Nasca, Giza, etc] selectively picks sites and ignores a lot of others

bc] That is not true Byrd. I was specific in my post above and Alison's site is clear on this point also. The line corresponds to an equator whose pole is at 60N : 140W.

Only locations of interest on that ancient equator are mentioned. So PLEASE read what is posted

As I said, you could pick another set of sites and then prove an "equator" whose pole is at any area of the planet you liked. That's not good observation or good truth. It's Bad Science.

Alison may be a very nice person, but Alison is promoting Bad Science and isn't interested in looking at facts... just a selection of them. And pyramids are found in a lot of locations.

And to call a "great circle" an equator also is pretty bad science, ignoring things like recorded information (by humans about their civilizations) about the position of stars, what they recorded as "north", etc, etc.

Good science means you have to look at everything -- not convenient facts and then make a conclusion. I think Alison should be gently put in the realm of 'wild fantasy' and some of the better sites should be promoted and considered.

Have you ever visited the forums at www.badastronomy.com... -- as well as the main site? That's a great place for finding good information.

One quick question:

If the continants have been drifitng, for roughly 10,000(since the objects got built) years they might not have lined up so perfectly when they were first built?

[edit on 23/7/2005 by Odium]

In defense of Alias Jones;
check out 'crystal links' web site , search for 'world grids'. This should end the debate.
Some work was done on the subject by Bruce Cathie, A MATHMETICIAN! It would be foolhardy to argue math with such a person.

sledge

Originally posted by ByrdSacreligion:
No, it's not possible that the civilizations were around in Pangaea. Pangaea was during the earliest time of the dinosaurs. Humans wouldn't evolve for another hundred million years or so.

this is true based on what sceince tells us...what if carbon dating is wrong though, and the time that scientists think pangaea broke apart is a lot closer to present times than they think?

everything i say in regards to discussions such as these is entirely hypothetical...i sure as hell don't know enough about science to start trying to prove my outlandish claims

Seems that Allison has just put a little spin on the information presented by Professor Hapgood about 50 years ago.

Suggested reading:

The Atlantis Blueprint

Originally posted by Odium
One quick question:

If the continants have been drifitng, for roughly 10,000(since the objects got built) years they might not have lined up so perfectly when they were first built?

[edit on 23/7/2005 by Odium]

Continents have been drifting for four billion years and they drift at the rate of bout an inch a year (or so.) Add to that rising and falling sea levels and land building and erosion, and you have a wonderfullylively planet.

So, in 10,000 years, continents have drifted (in various directions... not all at once) less than 5 miles. And some of this drift has been into each other, pushing up mountains and causing earthquakes.

Originally posted by Sacreligion

Originally posted by ByrdSacreligion:
No, it's not possible that the civilizations were around in Pangaea. Pangaea was during the earliest time of the dinosaurs. Humans wouldn't evolve for another hundred million years or so.

this is true based on what sceince tells us...what if carbon dating is wrong though, and the time that scientists think pangaea broke apart is a lot closer to present times than they think?

Carbon dating (thoroughly tested) is ONLY good for 1,000 - 50,000 years ago. They can't date dinosaurs. The can only date living things, so it's impossible to date rocks.

Other methods of dating are used and yes, they're fairly reliable. If the Earth was zipping around on its crust like a Doberman on a bad acid trip, there would be a lot more active volcanos and far more earthquakes going on... and we'd be able to see (with our own eyes) changes in the shoreline and distances between continents between the time we were 5 years old and the time we were 20 years old.

everything i say in regards to discussions such as these is entirely hypothetical...i sure as hell don't know enough about science to start trying to prove my outlandish claims

Wikipedia is your friend. Seriously, one of the better places to check first is Wikipedia. It's not infallible but it's usually decent. With that as a background, hit Google.

Originally posted by sacreligion
what if....the time that scientists think pangaea broke apart is a lot closer to present times than they think?

Excellent question.
I tend to believe that Pangea broke apart rather recently and at very rapid rate.

Biblically, in Genesis 11, this is the timeframe of the man called Peleg, which means to divide or split. He live 239 years and about 4-5000 years ago.

I believe continental drift accelerated and deaccelerated during this time frame.

Now the continents barely move. They're pretty much settled.

The theme of these cultures were very much the same, it was all about sacrificing to the Gods, the Triangle has the Trinity theme running through it as one of most important of Gods numbers. The sacrifice as the Isrealites did and gave burnt offerings as the nearest thing untill the return of the king of the Jews who lay the ultimate sacrifice on the cross. It was always about that the future prophecy of Jesus as predicted in the old testiment. So as in Babylon in Genesis 11:6 to9 God split man appart all over the earth so yes they had this pyramid and sacrificing idea when they were scattered. They all have different languages to these pyramids but they all have the same meanings which were currupt and pagan.

Originally posted by The time lord
The theme of these cultures were very much the same, it was all about sacrificing to the Gods, the Triangle has the Trinity theme running through it as one of most important of Gods numbers. The sacrifice as the Isrealites did and gave burnt offerings as the nearest thing untill the return of the king of the Jews who lay the ultimate sacrifice on the cross. It was always about that the future prophecy of Jesus as predicted in the old testiment. So as in Babylon in Genesis 11:6 to9 God split man appart all over the earth so yes they had this pyramid and sacrificing idea when they were scattered. They all have different languages to these pyramids but they all have the same meanings which were currupt and pagan.

Good analysis. Since the time Abel sacrificed his animals to God, the concept of animal sacrifice multiplied and spread into other religions. This is the ultimate respect one can offer someone else, to offer sacrifice. This is how Satan and his devils influened other pagan cultures to pay homeage.

The ultimate sacrifice was Jesus the Lamb of God, yes. But in scripture it is said that he himself will accept animal sacrifice, in the millenial reign. This is where the pyramid comes into play, the top of the "Great" pyramid is the actual altar and throne of Jesus Christ. It is the Mt. Zion of the Old Testament.

I thought Jesus will appear when the third temple in Isreal is built, well before that the Anti-Christ will counterfit it.
I think Jesus will appear in Isreal first where the Jews are rather than a Pyramid in Egypt that is run by Muslims.
But its interesting I see what you mean, but do'nt forget the new Jeruselem sent down from heaven will be over the current Jeruselem and so will Jesus be in that region.

www.centuryone.org...

Harte wrote] The entire hypothesis [of Hapgood's Earth's Shifting Crust, 1956] is preposterous. The shift in unison of the entire crust of the Earth cannot happen. There is no force to make it happen.

bc] Harte, I think you're quite mistaken. First; it's clear you've not read anything on the subject. The apparent problems of the forces [which you've improperly referred to Einstein] were solved in this book in 1998

On the matter of Einstein [who wrote the forward to Earth's Shifting Crust, he was very specific:

"Without a doubt [Einstein wrote] the earth's crust is strong enough not to give way proportionately as the ice is deposited. The only doubtful assumption is that the earth's crust can be moved easily enough over the inner layers."

So he clearly warned Charles Hapgood of the need to solve that particular problem.

So if there's any evidence of pseudoscientific bureaucratese .. it lays clearly on your own shoulders.

As for geologic evidence, where you claim "There is none." Again it's clear you've not read anything on the subject.

bc
.